"Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)

that Wilberforce showed that darwins theory was falsifiedeven darwin admiits the logic of Wiberforces points

Darwin himself thought Wilberforce's criticisms fair or at least faceable. `I have just read the "Quarterly" ' he wrote to Hooker in July, 1860. `It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly by quoting the "Anti-Jacobin" against my Grandfather ... '33. A letter to Lyell on 11 August is significant:'... This morning I recommenced work and am at dogs; ... By the way, the Bishop makes a very telling case against me, by accumulating several instances where I speak doubtfully; but this is very unfair, as in such cases as this of the dog, the evidence is and must be very doubtful

this is a good example of the fact that science has no methodsome say the scientific method is falsificationbut even darwin saw the cambrian explosion falsified his theory

if falsification is the scientific methoddarwins theory was shown to be falsethusthat should have been the end of darwins theory

Gamila wrote:That there is no scientific method is shown by the early reception of darwins theory of evolution-this shows the fact that science has no method

Gamila,Isn't that because in reality in the case of evolution, historical science is being treated as operational science? Colin Leslie Dean has a point, but he takes it in a philosophical direction.

Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would includephysics and chemistry.

You bring up really good points Gamila, but then you throw the baby out with the bath water. Wouldn't it be better to spit out the bones and chew the meat? There is a a scientific method based on experimentation and observation which explores how things work, but we are all limited in knowledge.

Please do not use NS and evolution as a litmus test for the scientific method. Evolution sells so it gets a pass.

As far as I am concerned it is falsified, but obviously to many the arguments against it are not strong enough. The evolutionists are very persistent though--I do give them credit--their dedication to the ever changing theory resembles faith.

Scientific method and Evolution by natural selection have the same relation as the laws of physics and the Cold Stirling engine principle. Even if the latter was proven to be impossible, it would not invalidate the basics of physics.And the theory of evolution by natural selection as understood and used now is to what Darwin understood what a modern Ferrari is to N.-J. Cugnot fardier à vapeur... But since for the moment you have failed to impres anyone by your understanding of evolution, and its supposed flaws, i am seriously starting to wonder if you are able to provide any insight into a discussion about evolution.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new speciesgenetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit

3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right

Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

(This is entirely my own opinion as formed under the tutelage of my first-year biology instructor.)

The scientific method is less of a man-made process as it is "what happens" when the process of science is engaged in. If that was the method was entirely man-made, it would have been altered as much as, say, religious theology. Instead it maintains its pure form, though individuals may deviate form it, because it is not dependent on man at all. It is as man-made as 2+23. We labeled it, but the concept was already out there, involved in the workings of the universe. When our ancestors picked up 23 rocks, and then picked up one more, they had 24 whether they knew it or not. In the same way, when we as children discovered that a flashlight did not work because the batteries were dead, we used the scientific method, though we did not call it that.